NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 10.9.03/16.1.04 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby the appellate order was set aside and the revision wasallowed.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the Tractor with Trailor No. 8489 loaded with stone was seized illegally from the leasehold area of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he runs crusher business in the name and style of M/S Mahesh Stone Industries. For that purpose lease has been granted to the petitioner. He possesses the valid lease document. The petitioner has been also paying royalty for the lease hold area. In the year 2000 on the basis of a false report of Range Officer, a confiscation proceeding was imitated against the petitioner alleging that on 18.5.2000 the petitioner's Tractor and Trailor bearing No. 8489 was seized with stone leaded from the Forest Area. The said case was registered as Confiscation Case No. 35/2000. The petitioner denied the allegation in his reply to show cause stating, inter alia, that he petitioner holds a lease for mining stone over an area of 70 decimal of Gairmazarua land and that the Tractor with Trailor was seized form the lease hold area. He also denied the other allegations. The D.F.O, Dhanbad without considering the said facts and material on record arbitrarily passed an order dated 2.6.01 confiscating the petitioner's Tractor with Tailor on the allegation that the Tractor with Tailor was transporting the forest produce in contravention of the provisions of the Forest Acts.
(3.) THE petitioner then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner -cum -appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner heard the parties and after discussing and considering the materials on record, came to the conclusion that there was no valid ground for confiscating the petitioner's vehicle. The prosecution failed to prove that at the time when the said vehicle was seized, the same was carrying forest produce in violation of the Forest Acts. The Deputy Commissioner also took into consideration that the petitioner was given a lease for mining stone and that t could not be proved that he mined stone beyond his leasehold area and the stone loaded on the said vehicle was forest produce. The Deputy Commissioner, thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the confiscating authority and directed to release the petitioner's vehicle.;